Mother defends breastfeeding baby while driving (followup on idiot)

WKYC-TV/DT Cleveland ^ | 6.17.03 | Vic Gideon

[mhking]

Mother defends breastfeeding baby while driving

Reported by Vic Gideon
POSTED: Monday, June 16, 2003 5:06:15 PM
UPDATED: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 12:20:52 PM

PORTAGE COUNTY -- A mother traveling from Detroit to Pittsburgh got into trouble in Portage County while trying to drive and breastfeed her baby at the same time.

Twenty-nine-year-old Catherine Donkers had fed the baby before she left Detroit but said her seven-month-old daughter was hungry again.

"I knew I was doing nothing wrong when I was breastfeeding her," Donkers said.

Donkers doesn't consider her actions excessively dangerous.

"I think there are lots of things we do when we put ourselves at risk, just by the very fact that I'm in a car and there's lots of car accidents every single day," she said. "I think it would be reasonable to say even that's a danger."

A truck driver apparently saw it as a danger and called the highway patrol. But Donkers wouldn't pull over for police until she got to a tollbooth.

"I've directed her to, that when she doesn't feel safe, she goes to a public place," said her husband, Brad Barnhill.

At the tollbooth, Donkers didn't give the trooper a driver's license. She instead pulled out an affidavit as identification and got cited for not having a license.

The couple also claims she did nothing wrong, saying Michigan law has an exemption to its child restraint law for nursing mothers.

They claim that since the turnpike is an interstate, drivers can follow the laws of their home state. But the highway patrol says that as long as the stop occurred in Ohio, they have to abide by Ohio laws.

The couple has done extensive research on the law and believes in a strict adherence to them. Donkers is facing child endangering and child seat violations among other charges. Her and her husband say they plan to fight all charges and will file a counter suit.

[Kozak]

I disagree. Or more to the point, I don't see the evidence for this. Your argument for why it is is based on "ifs", which can be used to make any action dangerous. And the word "reasonable" is a very subjective term.

She placed the child between her and the steering column while driving down the interstate at highway speed. Fact. This placed the child at risk of being struck by the airbag if it deployed.FAct. Or by being crushed between the mother and the steering column if it didn't.Fact. In a rollover the child would be either tossed around the vehicle, or ejected from the vehicle.Fact.These events occur daily in the real world with fatal consequences. Fact. Frequently the cause of these accidents is unavoidable and unforseeable. FAct. She did this to feed her child, an action that could be safely delayed for a significant amount of time without any harm to the child.Fact. Want to argue any of the above? Fail to see any "evidence" of danger to the baby? Persuade me to the contrary.

As to being on the jury, you volunteered. But I stand by my prior assertion.

[pupdog]

You must not know what a Newton is.

I do, but I fail to see what Macintosh notepads have to do with any of this.

Take some physics, then tell us this isn't dangerous for the baby.

All accomplished. Glad to be of service.

[Empire_of_Liberty]

Wow! I can't tell you what an eye-opener this thread has been for me. I have been daily reading Free Republic for a couple of years now, and have seen many of the responders to this thread post many eloquent defenses of personal liberty and the virtues of limited government.

I come on to this thread ('cause its boring Friday afternoons and I've read all the others), and by the end of this, I think Free Republic has shorted-out with Democratic Underground!

I am impressed by the knowledge and beliefs you have presented here. I actually applaud your desire not to be numbered by the government, and am flabergasted by the general response it seems to receive, here.

The idea that we are all in MORTAL DANGER by your wife driving as she was, which has been echoed here by so many, I find completely laughable. I suspect the normal driving of motorcycles is more dangerous, and in any event, I expect that as long as no laws were broken, it is none of my buisness.

I hope this thread is archived, as it has been so enlightening for me. So many on Free Republic have decried the attrocity which occurred at Waco, Texas, and I hope you are not offended when I say that in reading your replies, my first thought was that you are just such a type of person as our government so ruthlessly murdered on that day. They collected guns, and I guess everyone thought that was strange enough that they should die. You seem to be getting a similar response, here.

Stay safe, and God bless you.

[dighton]

The poster whose comment was deleted in #195 is bva.

Mmmmmm, not quite. #195 was by bvw.

[bvw]

Last person I bit -- he bit me first. The ref didn't care. Taught me a lesson. Don't bite back unless you can get away with it.

I'm happy you are most definitely a fighter, yourself.

What I'm saying is the woman is an adult. A responsible adult. She handled the car responsibly, and didn't go apolectic when the police car set its flashers on.

We trust adults. We let them fly things with afterburners solo. Armed things.

There's no magic to giving responsibility to adults, but when you do the results ARE magic.

[dighton]

Roger. Now you can ignore #464.

[Howlin]

See if you can follow along.

All car seats in the United States are manufactured to specification set out UNDER LAW by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (Standard 213); all states REQUIRE the use of car seats that are built to specs approved by that body; that body specifices that all children under 12 be in the back seat of cars and, if in a truck with an airbag, that airbag MUST have been disabled by the dealership and/or have an on/off switch next to the airbag in question.

The chart I posted is from the National Highway Safety Board; those are the guidelines that ALL states use in drawing up their laws.

Unless, of course, you don't consider rules and regulations written by the National Highway Safety Traffic Assocation, part of the United States Deparment of Transportation, to be LAWS and/or rules and regulations.

[mylife]

I think Free Republic has shorted-out with Democratic Underground!

Bizarre isn't it??
What about the Children?? wont some one PULeeeeeeezzzee think of the Childen

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

You seem to be getting a similar response, here.

I agree with your sentiments.

One poster said that "we all were in danger" because his wife drove while nursing her child. Like this one act will wipe out all 200 million Americans. Talk about hyperbole --Sheesh!

RgnadKzin: Good luck to you, sir.

Dan

[pupdog]

Persuade me to the contrary.

I'm not trying to, because I don't think you're open to persuasion. I'm posting this more to let the lurkers know that not everyone is buying into this.

Now as to your "facts": how do you know for certain that car had an air bag? How do you know the circumstances of why the mother did not wait to breast feed? How do you know that a significant majority of the scenarios you are describing wouldn't have hurt the child otherwise? How do you know how she would have reacted if she saw an accident coming? How do you know what her speed was? What cars were near her? And when all of your factors are taken into account, how do you know that what she did is stastistically more dangerous than the myriad activities parents do an a daily basis with their children?

See that's the thing: I really don't feel the need or desire to persuade you. I'm just pointing out that you are not persuading me.

As to being on the jury, you volunteered. But I stand by my prior assertion.

Uh, no I didn't. Please read more slowly. I was posting a hypothetical. And given that I might be on such a jury someday, I'm letting you know that calling someone an "idiot" is a great way to make them take you and your views less seriously.

[bvw]

Well, I don't know why that reply was sent to the woodshed. Justshe pasted 1/3rd of it in her 202. Maybe it troubles the mods that I have a fondness for a man trying to stand up for himself, as strange as that standing up can seem.

Is it better to be all dazed and confused from trying to stand up, than just to go along with the lemming parade of the nanny-state?

[justshe]

I was not the only one who posted part of your comment. Nor did I hit the "abuse" button....in case you wonder.

[Catspaw]

What I'm saying is the woman is an adult.

The child isn't.

What's your opinion on abortion? Are your views on infancy close to Peter Singer's?

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

See if you can follow along.

All car seats in the United States are manufactured to specification set out UNDER LAW by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (Standard 213); all states REQUIRE the use of car seats that are built to specs approved by that body; that body specifices that all children under 12 be in the back seat of cars and, if in a truck with an airbag, that airbag MUST have been disabled by the dealership and/or have an on/off switch next to the airbag in question.

You never fail to disappoint, Howlin. The more wrong you are, the more insulting your tone.

Still "not acting as an authority", huh? Your words sound pretty authoritative, to me.

They also sound pretty wrong, which coming from you isn't too surprising.

To wit:

CALIFORNIA CODES
VEHICLE CODE
SECTION 27360-27368

27360.  (a) No parent or legal guardian, when present in a motor
vehicle, as defined in Section 27315, shall permit his or her child
or ward to be transported upon a highway in the motor vehicle without
providing and properly securing the child or ward, in a child
passenger restraint system meeting applicable federal motor vehicle
safety standards unless the child or ward is at least one of the
following:
   (1) Six years of age or older.
   (2) Weighs 60 pounds or more.
   (b) No driver shall transport on a highway any child in a motor
vehicle, as defined in Section 27315, without providing and properly
securing the child in a child passenger restraint system meeting
applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards unless the child is
at least one of the following:
   (1) Six years of age or older.
   (2) Weighs 60 pounds or more.
   This subdivision does not apply to a driver if the parent or legal
guardian of the child is also present in the vehicle and is not the
driver.

Now, please show me where in the CVC it is a requirement that a child's car seat must be carried in the back seat.

I'll give you a hint. You won't find it because it's not there. California has no requirement as to where in the car a child seat may be placed.

So, since you're wrong about California, then this means that you're probably also wrong about the remaining 49 states. Go ahead. Cite the relevent laws.

I'll see if I can follow along.

[KCmark]

Your "faith", as you describe it, is cultlike, and unworthy of serious consideration.

---

As they all are.

Sorry, I couldn't let this one go by.

[Howlin]

From YOUR post:

meeting applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards

It's right there, in the chart I provided.

Proper Child Safety Seat Use Chart Buckle Everyone. Children Age 12 and Under in Back!
	INFANTS	TODDLER	YOUNG CHILDREN
WEIGHT	Birth to 1 year at least 20-22 lbs.	Over 1 year and Over 20 lbs.-40 lbs.	Over 40 lbs. Ages 4-8, unless 4'9''.
TYPE of SEAT	Infant only or rear-facing convertible	Convertible / Forward-facing	Belt positioning booster seat
SEAT POSITION	Rear-facing only	Forward-facing	Forward-facing
ALWAYS MAKE SURE:	Children to one year and at least 20 lbs. in rear-facing seats Harness straps at or below shoulder level	Harness straps should be at or above shoulders Most seats require top slot for forward-facing	Belt positioning booster seats must be used with both lap and shoulder belt. Make sure the lap belt fits low and tight across the lap/upper thigh area and the shoulder belt fits snug crossing the chest and shoulder to avoid abdominal injuries
WARNING	All children age 12 and under should ride in the back seat	All children age 12 and under should ride in the back seat	All children age 12 and under should ride in the back seat

[Behind Liberal Lines]

I think Free Republic has shorted-out with Democratic Underground!
Bizarre isn't it??
What about the Children?? wont some one PULeeeeeeezzzee think of the Childen

Given your mocking tone, I take you're both pro-choice?

[bvw]

She was breatfeeding her baby. Not dumping the baby off at some day care with a case of similac.

[FourPeas]

My thoughts, too. I've read this thread with utter disbelief.

[bvw]

Posting my comment is okay and fine. So is hitting the abuse button, if a person thinks it need be.